After the BRM it seems to be more the rule than the exception to be denied "speech" on the blogs of the front-runners of the IBM bloggers. First it happened to me on Robs blog (where I commented on his patronizing tone towards a Czech delegate at the BRM and now it happened to me on Bob Sutors blog as well. Actually I thought it was just my point of view that was really stupid (so that Bob was essentially doing me a favour in not approving my comment), but today in the newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy I heard that Bob had completely disabled comments to this particular post and a post routing more of the, ahem, "balanced" views of the ODF Alliance. It seems to me that IBM has given up debating the issues at hand and are now using their blogs as mere portals with no user-interaction ... at least not interaction of the people opposing their views.
Well, to the amusement of you all - here is what I wrote:
I am a bit confused to why the lawyers of the Software Freedom Law Center has not compared the OSP of Microsoft to IBMs Interoperability Specifications Pledge at http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/opensource/isplist.shtml .
They seem to focus on two sentences from the OSP, but similar ones are present in IBMs ISP:
New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list.
IBM will evaluate new versions or additional specifications for inclusion based on their consistency with the objectives of this pledge which is to support widespread adoption of open specifications that enable software interoperability for our customers, and may, from time to time, make additional pledges.
The OSP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specification(s).
IBM irrevocably covenants to you that it will not assert any Necessary Claims against you for your making, using, importing, selling, or offering for sale Covered Implementations [...]. Covered Implementations" are those specific portions of a product (hardware, software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered Specification.
By decuction, shouldn't OSS-developers avoid ODF too?
I won't repeat Bobs response to me, since it was in a private email, but Bob, please feel free to comment here.